Letters to the Editor
ondelette
Published Letters: 1988 Editor's Choice: 19
-
nabalzbbfr what about the rest of the paragraph?
[Read the article: The DOJ's explicit refusal to obey the law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Since you attribute to the President two of the responsibilities that are attributed to "We the People" in the preamble, what about creating a more perfect union, establishing justice, promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty?
Does he have to do those things too if you decide the Congress is too partisan?
Oh, wait. He's not into nation building.
-
Really, St. F'uad?
[Read the article: Anxious about your areolas?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And how about yours? Based on a single comment, you evaluated my math and logic skills. Somehow, it doesn't sound like you did your mapping with an admissible set. But then, that's a design issue.
Actually, I was expressing frustration with the lack of input on the other stream, and echoing the comments of others that consider nipple tinting to be a non-issue.
But I didn't want to multiply things unnecessarily.
-
Maybe
[Read the article: Anxious about your areolas?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't assume that I'm a good writer, and you may not like the way I write. That's okay, but I reserve the right to self expression.
It's a little strange that bloggers that are so quick to comment on the judgment of others can't accept judgment themselves.
My response to you was mathematically correct, and requires no looking up of terms, if you know the math I was talking about, which I assume you do.
But we diverge. As I said, I was not attempting a gem of logic, nor making a statistical statement in my original post. I was expressing a feeling of frustration. Lousy writing? I accept your esteemed judgment.
-
What about the rise of the permanent corporation?
[Read the article: The DOJ's explicit refusal to obey the law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I didn't get to read all of what you guys have been discussing, just the first 3 pages, but could you fill me in about what the role of the external track is in all this?
My understanding of some of these trends is that the corporation reached permanence and began its evolution into its modern form after Southern Pacific v. Santa Clara, when corporations gained personhood before the courts. That quickly led to the Republican party becoming the "party of the rich", the voter registration changes in the 1890's that purposely and sharply decreased voter participation, and the anti-union activity extending into the 20th century.
When coupled with some of the things you mentioned, the robber-baronism and much later the military-industrial complex, these led to people in and out of government finding ways to get the government to be more responsive to corporate needs. By the 1980's you saw politicians of both parties running for office with their expertise listed as "I ran my own business and met payroll". Then in the 1990's came the shift by public corporations from a system in which the most important entity to a corporation was the customer, to the shareholder, combined with a lot of use of marginal statistics to measure corporate success.
The reason I wish someone would weave this into the history is that I just finished working many years at a very large corporation, and every time I see the current administration do some of the things that many find incomprehensibly irresponsible or incompetent, I marvel that my reaction is frequently "how incredibly corporate", instead.
It is something that needs to be tamed during the long slow crawl back to good government, the current corporate model seems sometimes unsustainable. No? Am I oversimplifying?